12 ways to gently respectfully challenge pro-trans arguments

[Ladyof2024]

I thought this might come in useful to those just beginning to take on the opposition.
-------------

Twelve Ways to Voice Opposition to Daft Ideas Without Losing Friends or Alienating People, by Joanna Gray.

====================================
How to get better at objecting to unedifying ideas

Ask the person suggesting an obviously daft idea if he or she would mind if you shared your opinion about it, rather than foisting it on him or her uninvited.

Respect others’ intentions. Most people are good and are trying their best, so avoid a heavy-handed aggressive disapproval.

Ask questions: “That’s such an interesting idea Chancellor, what are you hoping to achieve by it?” Often, that is sufficient: if the idea is flawed it will unravel itself in no time.

Remember your Aristotle: to win debates you need ethos, logos and pathos. Ethos is your good character and your authority to speak on the subject – most crudely used by those who say “as a mother…”. Logos is the truth of the matter. Pathos is your ability to persuade your opponent. Emotion alone is insufficient to win the point, it must be backed up by truth, but an ability to connect with and respect the emotion of your opponent is vital.

Remember you are debating the idea not the person. Don’t make him or her feel threatened, belittled or ill-informed.

Just try it! You don’t need to present a fully formed Douglas Murray-style-gotcha speech, initially it might just be sufficient to say, “I’m not yet sure why, but this idea is making me feel uncomfortable, may I have a think about it and get back to you?” If social or career disaster doesn’t follow, then you may feel emboldened to make a more spirited and researched objection later.

Be prepared to flatter. “You will know more about this than me but have you thought about…”

Listen to your opponent. Don’t stand there rolling your eyes, tutting or guffawing,

Remain calm and never shout.

Be prepared to use their own language. “Chancellor, this act of removing artworks of men might be considered by some to sit adjacent to sexism…”

Be satisfied with having planted a seed of doubt in those who listen to you, rather than furiously fighting for decisive victory.

Remind yourself why making a stand is important: “If not me, who? If not now, when?”

I'm so glad you finally understand why women (in the original sex based meaning) are so angry that women's rights (assigned to women under the original sex based meaning due to the challenges and needs we have because of our sex) are being removed.

You are correct. It's not right and it's not ok. It was never right and it was never ok. And it doesn't work.

This.

Oh, for the avoidance of doubt, I am 100% ok with removing any right to cross sex accommodation in order to re-establish the rights of women (original sex-based meaning obviously) to single sex support, provisions, rights and a political voice.

If trans women also need support, provisions, rights and a political voice I 100% support them but they need to find their own, not appropriate and thereby destroy what was put in place for female people.

Apart from the bit about Dadjoke understanding how many women feel.

... being transgender is not a mental disorder.

Having clinically significant dysphoria around gender incongruence is what makes it a disorder, and that is what is treated. Gender dysphoria’s inclusion in the DSM is also necessary for access to gender affirming care.

Since 2019, it's not longer been treated as disorder by WHO, it is a condition related to sexual health.

in out in out shake it all about

am I supposed to believe your first line, your second paragraph, or your third one? They are mutually contradictory.

Gender dysphoria is quite self evidently a psychological condition.

“... being transgender is not a mental disorder.”

The only remaining commonality between people with transgender identities is the group’s philosophical belief that they have a gender identity.

So, again… why is society expected to give that group additional rights above everyone else’s rights and especially where those additional rights negatively impact other groups rights (and particularly the other groups rights that give that group equity or equity of opportunity)?

That's pretty much what I was about to say.

I guess that's why women protecting their rights have been on the receiving end of actual physical violence, had had rape and death threats, have lost their jobs ... ...

I've just been reading the link from @Ereshkigalangcleg Thanks both.

Looking at the criteria, I have an indigo child. Hooray! We can throw away all the approaches we've been doing to support her autism and let the Local Authority know that they no longer need to fund her SEN support. The problem simply is that nobody has recognised her Indigo-ness.

And on a more serious note, the parallels here with the way that vulnerable children are encouraged to feel special because their of "non-conformity" (thus masking their actual needs) are scary.

Indeed.

It doesn't really matter if "being trans" is a mental disorder or not . Male people still can't be women. (and vice versa).

It's certainly not a physical disorder. Well, not until the butchers sorry surgeons and hormone pushers get involved. After that, yes, it's often a physical disorder. Who doesn't want their kids to have osteoporosis by 30?

It is so helpful to have a decisive view on this from a poster who is so much better informed than the World Health Organisation.

GD is in the DSM

You can't gently and kindly persuade people not to be gay, either. Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness by the WHO in 1992.

You can't argue people out of their identity.

You can't argue people out of their identity.

You still cannot argue that we should all believe that men can be women either.

Being sexually attracted to people is a universal (or near universal) human experience, reflected in all the world's literature and legend.

Thinking you have a 'gender' that obliges you to conform to a narrow set of culturally specific stereotypes isn't.

It is so helpful to have a decisive view on this from a poster who is so much better informed than the World Health Organisation.

An argument from authority is not an argument. The World Health Organization is not immune to political pressure and lobbying.

No one is trying to argue people out of their "identity".

What gender critical women and others are explaining patiently but consistently that a self-defined cross sex "identity" is self evidently not the same thing as actually being the opposite sex, and therefore it makes no sense to open up single sex provisions and language to people of the opposite sex based on the presumption of nothing more than a shared "identity".

Firstly because "identity" is not sex, and these single sex provisions (yes, unequivocally single sex since the concept of woman's rights and women's spaces predates the redefinition of the words Man and Woman as mixed sex) are based on sex, and secondly because the presumption that the "identity" trans people experience is in any way a true experience of the opposite sex is unproven and does not appear to match the lived experience of many many of those who actually are the opposite sex.

An argument from authority is sometimes an argument. If an authoritative body makes a statement such as this, it has weight, and argument by conspiracy theory has a heavier burden of proof.

I can't argue people out of their homosexuality because it is hardwired. I don't want to argue anyone out of their homosexuality, either.

I don't care if a person thinks they have a gender identity unless:

1. they are a child who thinks they have a gi which does not match their sex and that therefore they are the opposite sex and should be transitioned
2. they want to have (IMO pointless) medical interventions which I am expected to pay for
3. they expect everyone else to act and think on the basis of their belief
4. they expect society to be remodelled on the basis of their subjective belief

Dr Cass believes in gi, she also understands the reality of sex. That's fine by me. I would prefer if no children were ever given medical or surgical interventions for gender-distress reasons, but at least the wholesale funnelling of children onto harmful pathways is stopping.

So if you want to believe, go ahead. Knock yourself out. Just don't involve me.

I’d suggest it’s more of an argument than a basic assertion from someone on an internet forum with no verifiable knowledge or experience, but a very clear GC bias.

You don't need to argue someone out of an identity. You can simply refuse to go along with it, eg

"I'm Napoleon." "No, you're not."
"I'm a six year old girl." "No, you're not."
"I'm a woman." "No, you're not."

See? Simple.

As a gender atheist, I think imagining you have a gender identity that does match your sex is also damaging. Inventing a fantasy thing to limit human potential seems utterly perverse. Sex is real. Gender is a pretendy makey-up.

Gay people also "expect expect society to be remodelled" on the basis of their identity, by equalising the age of consent, introducing marriage equality and not treating their identity as a perversion. This annoyed a lot of people with protected philosophical beliefs, but that's how you balance rights.

The EA2010 and GRA2006 were introduced in part because of European Convention on Human Rights, and while gender critical people's pseudo-religious philosophical belief is also protected, they don't get to undermine this. It's a balance.